Sacrifice for job security

January 15, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
How much would you be willing to give up for the good of your law firm or office? I heard on the news The Indianapolis Star is requiring all employees – even the higher-ups – to take one week off without pay in the first quarter. The order is in response to the economy and the hard hit newspapers have been taking over the years thanks to the Internet.

A forced unpaid vacation is a pretty bold step in an attempt to save money. On the one hand, I’d be happy that it was only a week off unpaid as opposed to being fired. On the other hand, I’d be bothered that I was told I had to take vacation and lose out on that week of pay.

Companies across the board are seeking ways to slash the bottom line and keep businesses going, but how much are employees willing to sacrifice? Would you accept a pay cut, no bonus, less paid vacation or slashed benefits in turn for job security? It may not come to this in law firms because the nature of their business is completely different than newspapers. It may already be happening in some firms and we just don’t know about it.

In this economy, it seems like we hear about layoffs in all professions across the board on a daily basis, and I wonder what employees would be willing to do to keep their job.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT